SUNDEEP GUPTA Vs. MANORANJAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pattajoshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) INVOKING inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the Director of M/s. Konark Concast and Power Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash further proceedings of complaint case being ICC No.1564 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and also to set aside the order dated 5th July, 2005 passed by the said Court taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the "N.I. Act")

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Pattajoshi, the Court below has not properly appreciated the materials available and the order of cognizance is otherwise contrary to law. It is submitted that the opposite party having failed to fulfil his obligations, which he was otherwise required to perform in consonance with the terms of the agreement, he was not entitled to the amount specified in the cheque and thus the petitioner was not required to pay any amount to the opposite party. It is further submitted that the complaint case has not been filed by proper person and should not have been entertained inasmuch as the opposite party has completely failed to perform his part of the obligations in tears of the aforesaid agreement. It is further submitted that a perusal of the complaint petition would reveal that the dispute in question is more of civil in nature and as none of the ingredients for commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act are satisfied, the complaint petition ought to have been rejected at the very threshold. Several other grounds are also raised with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding mainly on the ground that the opposite party has no locus standi to file the complaint petition. Mr. Pattajoshi further submitted, rather forcefully, that perusal of the agreement and other materials would clearly reveal that the dispute, if any, has to be adjudicated in a civil Court and filing the present proceeding amounts to hand twisting. Mr. Pattajoshi drew attention of this Court to different terms of the contract and submitted that the petitioner was not required to pay any amount and filing of the complaint case was misconceived one.